Fla. judge strikes down Obama health care overhaul

Status
Not open for further replies.

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,425
Reaction score
551
PENSACOLA, Fla. – A federal judge ruled Monday that the Obama administration's health care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that sued to block it. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.

The next stop is likely the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance provision violates the Constitution.

In his ruling, Vinson went further than the Virginia judge and declared the entire health care law unconstitutional.

"This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling.

At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

Attorneys for President Barack Obama's administration had argued that the health care system was part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.

But attorneys for the states said the administration was essentially coercing the states into participating in the overhaul by holding billions of Medicaid dollars hostage. The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.

Florida's former Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined.

Other states that joined the suit are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Fla. judge strikes down Obama health care overhaul - Yahoo! News
 
CA taxes its citizens to pay for inmate health care.

2003 there was a us court ruling that health conditions must be at a level that wouldn't break the 8th amendment of "cruel and unusual punishment". Interesting to see where/what this case does.
 
CA taxes its citizens to pay for inmate health care.

2003 there was a us court ruling that health conditions must be at a level that wouldn't break the 8th amendment of "cruel and unusual punishment". Interesting to see where/what this case does.

Sorry, I don't see the connection.....
 
It'll be a longer post later...many references and such...later...long day going to bed
 
In the back of everyone's minds .... we KNEW this was going to happen.
 
Yep. Now let's get rid of speed limits and auto insurance.
Problems with the auto insurance defense:
1. It's the state, not federal government.
2. It's only a requirement if you want to drive using public roads.
3. Most states only require liability insurance- protection for property you damage that does not belong to you. You're not required to insure your own damages.

And how are speed limits related?
 
Problems with the auto insurance defense:
1. It's the state, not federal government.
2. It's only a requirement if you want to drive using public roads.
3. Most states only require liability insurance- protection for property you damage that does not belong to you. You're not required to insure your own damages.

And how are speed limits related?

1) So? They go hand in hand with each other.

2) Not many people own private highways. So?

3) Insurance is insurance. Where have I specified full coverage?

What does speeding have to do with this? Next time you get pulled over for it, tell the cop to go to hell, it's a free country. :lol:
 
1) So? They go hand in hand with each other.

2) Not many people own private highways. So?

3) Insurance is insurance. Where have I specified full coverage?
1. We're talking about the constitutionality of the law. According to the Constitution, there are a lot of areas where states can make law but the feds can't. In fact, pretty much most matters fall under that category, according to the 10th amendment.

2. State and local governments build and maintain public roads so they have to regulate the roads. Making requirements for using them (such as having a driver's license, liability insurance, a suitable vehicle, etc.) is part of that regulation. The predominance of public roads and lack of private roads is a non-sequitur.

If I don't want to buy auto insurance, I don't have to drive. On the other hand, there's nothing I can do to avoid the requirement of buying health insurance. That's a requirement imposed on me just for living in the United States.

3. The federal government is trying to make everybody buy insurance to protect themselves, whether they want it or not. The states only require liability insurance, not to protect myself, but to protect others from damage I may do to them. The reasoning is much different.

What does speeding have to do with this? Next time you get pulled over for it, tell the cop to go to hell, it's a free country. :lol:
I don't see your point. Opposition to mandated health insurance is hardly an anarchist viewpoint. Some laws are appropriate for the government to make (like states imposing speed limits) and some are not (like the federal government mandating the purchase of health insurance).
 
Problems with the auto insurance defense:
1. It's the state, not federal government.
2. It's only a requirement if you want to drive using public roads.
3. Most states only require liability insurance- protection for property you damage that does not belong to you. You're not required to insure your own damages.

And how are speed limits related?

1. in mandatory health insurance clause - it's state, not federal

and I can see why Obama's pushing for mandatory health insurance because our current system is unsustainable and out of control. It's causing a dent on our economy too because of unions' demand for expensive health benefit for retirees. Plus - the burden falls on taxpayers to pay for those who are not covered.

Mandatory Insurance will push the price down and increase the competition.

However - my problem with it is that it will cause the companies to cut corners and/or to not hire more workers. and it's not enforceable. It doesn't make sense to the pass unenforceable law. It brings nothing but trouble and financial burden for all.
 
1. We're talking about the constitutionality of the law. According to the Constitution, there are a lot of areas where states can make law but the feds can't. In fact, pretty much most matters fall under that category, according to the 10th amendment.

2. State and local governments build and maintain public roads so they have to regulate the roads. Making requirements for using them (such as having a driver's license, liability insurance, a suitable vehicle, etc.) is part of that regulation. The predominance of public roads and lack of private roads is a non-sequitur.

If I don't want to buy auto insurance, I don't have to drive. On the other hand, there's nothing I can do to avoid the requirement of buying health insurance. That's a requirement imposed on me just for living in the United States.

3. The federal government is trying to make everybody buy insurance to protect themselves, whether they want it or not. The states only require liability insurance, not to protect myself, but to protect others from damage I may do to them. The reasoning is much different.


I don't see your point. Opposition to mandated health insurance is hardly an anarchist viewpoint. Some laws are appropriate for the government to make (like states imposing speed limits) and some are not (like the federal government mandating the purchase of health insurance).

the rebuttal argument can be said that people can ride public transportation (provided by government) regardless of their age and income level.

so how about people who chose not to have private health insurance? they should be able to choose "public" health insurance - regardless of age and income level.

That's how I want it. The government should provide public health insurance.... without mandatory clause. That should give some edge to competition.
 
1. in mandatory health insurance clause - it's state, not federal
No, it's federal. You may be talking about the provision that allows states to opt out if they come up with a program that the HHS secretary approves. But still, the mandate comes from the federal government and the fines will be issued through the IRS.

and I can see why Obama's pushing for mandatory health insurance because our current system is unsustainable and out of control. It's causing a dent on our economy too because of unions' demand for expensive health benefit for retirees. Plus - the burden falls on taxpayers to pay for those who are not covered.

Mandatory Insurance will push the price down and increase the competition.
I don't see how adding 30 million people to a market without increasing supply will lower costs. We're going about this the wrong way.
 
the rebuttal argument can be said that people can ride public transportation (provided by government) regardless of their age and income level.

so how about people who chose not to have private health insurance? they should be able to choose "public" health insurance - regardless of age and income level.

That's how I want it. The government should provide public health insurance.... without mandatory clause. That should give some edge to competition.
I just want clear sensible rules for the industry to follow. I don't want politicians to have a vehicle, such as their own health insurance program, to arbitrarily undermine the private industry whenever they feel in the mood to win some populist points.
 
Yep. Now let's get rid of speed limits and auto insurance.

:laugh2:

And this is all just a case of wishful thinking. Nothing has happened yet.
Still many hoops to jump through. More of a political move than anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top